[sc34wg3] Moving TMQL and TMCL forward

[Steve Pepper]

* Lars
|
| Each change requires this work and work requires time. And if
| I understood SC34 correctly, we do not have time, at least we
| have to push TMQL forward.

I've been thinking about this. Yes, TMQL and TMCL need to move
forward as soon as possible. It would clearly be most convenient
if any CTM syntax contained in those ballot texts could be
considered final, but this is by no means necessary.

Both TMQL and TMCL can move forward to FCD ballot without
waiting for CTM to be finalized. 95% of the content of each of
these has nothing to do with CTM. Both models are completely
independent of CTM and should be assessed independently of the
syntax of CTM.

It is important that we get CTM right and we should not rush
forward until the present disagreements have been resolved.

I propose that TMQL and TMCL go to FCD ballot now - in their
current, complete states, albeit with a CTM syntax that we know
will change for the DIS or FDIS ballot.

How say you, Mr. Convenor?

Steve

--
Conference Chair, Topic Maps 2008
Oslo, April 2-4 2008
www.topicmaps.com